Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 3, 2017 | 讟壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Batra 162

In what other ways can we ensure that documents are not forged? 聽How much space can be left between the wording and the signatures?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇诪讚讬谉 诪砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛

Rav Amram says: It is because one may not learn any new details from the final line of a document. There is a concern that the holder of the document may have written in an extra line of text to his advantage, between the text and the witnesses鈥 signatures. Therefore, any new information contained in the last line is disregarded. Since the final line is disregarded, it is necessary that the final line of a document contain only a review of what is already written in it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 注诪专诐 诪谞讗 诇讱 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讞讬拽 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 诪谉 讛讻转讘 驻住讜诇 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讻砖专

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Amram: From where do you know this? Rav Amram said to him: As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:1): If one writing a document distanced the witnesses鈥 signatures two lines from the text of the document, leaving two lines blank, the document is not valid, as it would be possible for the holder of the document to fill in false information in those lines. But if one distanced the signatures one line from the text, the document is valid.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 讚诇诪讗 诪讝讬讬祝 讜讻转讘 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 谞诪讬 诪讝讬讬祝 讜讻转讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诇诪讚讬谉 诪砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Amram analyzes the baraita: What is different in the case of two blank lines that that the document is not valid? If you say that perhaps the holder of the document will take advantage of those two blank lines, and forge unverified information and write it in those lines, then in the case of one line left blank as well, he can forge information and write it in that line. Rather, must one not conclude from the baraita that one may not learn any new details from the final line of a document? Therefore, only when two lines are left blank is there a concern that false information would be added to the penultimate line. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from this baraita that it is so.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讬讟讛 讜诪讞爪讛 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛专讞讬拽 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 驻住讜诇 讛讗 砖讬讟讛 讜诪讞爪讛 讻砖专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the space of a line and a half is left blank, what is the halakha? The Gemara seeks a solution to the dilemma. Come and hear what was stated in the baraita cited earlier: If one writing a document distanced the witnesses鈥 signatures two lines from the text of the document, leaving two lines blank, the document is not valid. One can infer: But if there is a gap of only a line and a half, the document is valid.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讻砖专 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讛讜讗 讚讻砖专 讛讗 砖讬讟讛 讜诪讞爪讛 驻住讜诇 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara deflects this proof: Say the last clause of the baraita: If one writing a document distanced the witnesses鈥 signatures one line from the text of the document, the document is valid. One can infer: It is only when there is a gap of one line that the document is valid, but if there is a gap of a line and a half it is not valid. The Gemara states: Rather, no inference is to be learned from this baraita.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讞讬拽 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 诪谉 讛讻转讘 驻住讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讻砖专

What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Come and hear a proof from a different source, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:10): If one writing a document distanced the witnesses鈥 signatures two lines from the text of the document, the document is not valid, but if the gap is less than that, it is valid. It is clear from the baraita that any gap less than two full lines does not invalidate the document.

讛讬讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 注讚讬诐 讞转讜诪讬谉 注诇 讛砖讟专 讜谞诪爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽专讜讘 讗讜 驻住讜诇 转转拽讬讬诐 注讚讜转 讘砖讗专

The baraita continues: If there were four or five witnesses signed on the document, and one of them was found to be a relative of one of the parties in the document, or one of them was found to be otherwise disqualified from bearing witness, the testimony on the document may be established via the other witnesses.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪诇讗讛讜 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 讻砖专

The Gemara draws a further conclusion from this baraita: This supports the opinion of 岣zkiyya, as 岣zkiyya says: If one filled in the gap between the document and the signatures with signatures of relatives, the document is valid.

讜讗诇 转转诪讛 砖讛专讬 讗讜讬专 住讜讻讛 驻讜住诇 讘砖诇砖讛 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注讛

岣zkiyya continued: And do not be surprised by this, as a similar situation is found with regard to the roofing of a sukka. Empty space in the roofing of a sukka disqualifies the sukka if the space extends for three handbreadths, whereas materials that are unfit to be used as roofing disqualify the sukka only if the unfit material extends for four handbreadths. If a sukka had a gap in its roofing of three handbreadths it is disqualified, but if the gap is filled in with unfit material the sukka is valid, since it is less than four handbreadths. This is comparable to the situation with a document: If there is a significant gap between the text and the signatures the document is not valid, but if the gap is filled in with signatures of those disqualified from bearing witness it is valid.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 砖讗诪专讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the gap of two blank lines between the text and the signatures, which the Sages said invalidates the document,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 162

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 162

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇诪讚讬谉 诪砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛

Rav Amram says: It is because one may not learn any new details from the final line of a document. There is a concern that the holder of the document may have written in an extra line of text to his advantage, between the text and the witnesses鈥 signatures. Therefore, any new information contained in the last line is disregarded. Since the final line is disregarded, it is necessary that the final line of a document contain only a review of what is already written in it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 注诪专诐 诪谞讗 诇讱 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讞讬拽 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 诪谉 讛讻转讘 驻住讜诇 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讻砖专

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Amram: From where do you know this? Rav Amram said to him: As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:1): If one writing a document distanced the witnesses鈥 signatures two lines from the text of the document, leaving two lines blank, the document is not valid, as it would be possible for the holder of the document to fill in false information in those lines. But if one distanced the signatures one line from the text, the document is valid.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 讚诇诪讗 诪讝讬讬祝 讜讻转讘 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 谞诪讬 诪讝讬讬祝 讜讻转讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诇诪讚讬谉 诪砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Amram analyzes the baraita: What is different in the case of two blank lines that that the document is not valid? If you say that perhaps the holder of the document will take advantage of those two blank lines, and forge unverified information and write it in those lines, then in the case of one line left blank as well, he can forge information and write it in that line. Rather, must one not conclude from the baraita that one may not learn any new details from the final line of a document? Therefore, only when two lines are left blank is there a concern that false information would be added to the penultimate line. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from this baraita that it is so.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讬讟讛 讜诪讞爪讛 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛专讞讬拽 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 驻住讜诇 讛讗 砖讬讟讛 讜诪讞爪讛 讻砖专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the space of a line and a half is left blank, what is the halakha? The Gemara seeks a solution to the dilemma. Come and hear what was stated in the baraita cited earlier: If one writing a document distanced the witnesses鈥 signatures two lines from the text of the document, leaving two lines blank, the document is not valid. One can infer: But if there is a gap of only a line and a half, the document is valid.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讻砖专 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讛讜讗 讚讻砖专 讛讗 砖讬讟讛 讜诪讞爪讛 驻住讜诇 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara deflects this proof: Say the last clause of the baraita: If one writing a document distanced the witnesses鈥 signatures one line from the text of the document, the document is valid. One can infer: It is only when there is a gap of one line that the document is valid, but if there is a gap of a line and a half it is not valid. The Gemara states: Rather, no inference is to be learned from this baraita.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讞讬拽 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 诪谉 讛讻转讘 驻住讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讻砖专

What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Come and hear a proof from a different source, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:10): If one writing a document distanced the witnesses鈥 signatures two lines from the text of the document, the document is not valid, but if the gap is less than that, it is valid. It is clear from the baraita that any gap less than two full lines does not invalidate the document.

讛讬讜 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 注讚讬诐 讞转讜诪讬谉 注诇 讛砖讟专 讜谞诪爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽专讜讘 讗讜 驻住讜诇 转转拽讬讬诐 注讚讜转 讘砖讗专

The baraita continues: If there were four or five witnesses signed on the document, and one of them was found to be a relative of one of the parties in the document, or one of them was found to be otherwise disqualified from bearing witness, the testimony on the document may be established via the other witnesses.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪诇讗讛讜 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 讻砖专

The Gemara draws a further conclusion from this baraita: This supports the opinion of 岣zkiyya, as 岣zkiyya says: If one filled in the gap between the document and the signatures with signatures of relatives, the document is valid.

讜讗诇 转转诪讛 砖讛专讬 讗讜讬专 住讜讻讛 驻讜住诇 讘砖诇砖讛 住讻讱 驻住讜诇 驻讜住诇 讘讗专讘注讛

岣zkiyya continued: And do not be surprised by this, as a similar situation is found with regard to the roofing of a sukka. Empty space in the roofing of a sukka disqualifies the sukka if the space extends for three handbreadths, whereas materials that are unfit to be used as roofing disqualify the sukka only if the unfit material extends for four handbreadths. If a sukka had a gap in its roofing of three handbreadths it is disqualified, but if the gap is filled in with unfit material the sukka is valid, since it is less than four handbreadths. This is comparable to the situation with a document: If there is a significant gap between the text and the signatures the document is not valid, but if the gap is filled in with signatures of those disqualified from bearing witness it is valid.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 砖讗诪专讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the gap of two blank lines between the text and the signatures, which the Sages said invalidates the document,

Scroll To Top